City is in a Flap over Building Bird Strikes
The City of Calgary is considering a set of policies that would require building developers to design “bird-friendly” buildings. But what exactly is the problem?
Apparently there are special interest groups who are equally in a flap over bird kills as a result of collisions with buildings. Let’s be clear: no building owner seeks to cause harm to any animal. Full stop – no further discussion is required. However, bird strikes against buildings are an unintended consequence of modern urban life. According to the documents sent by the City and reviewed by BOMA, approximately 150 birds die annually as a result of collisions with buildings. As stated in the report, the Calgary Bird Banding Society collected 411 birds, or 137 birds on average per year. This generally happens most often during the spring and fall migrations. The birds, most often song birds, migrate at night and can be confused by both the light and the reflections from building glass. By comparison in Toronto the bird body count is in the region of 10,000 during the migrations. Evidently the problem is significantly worse in Toronto which is located smack in the middle of a major flyway. Calgary by comparison is on the edge of the flyway, which might explain our much lower numbers.
Let’s look at things in context. It is estimated that between 60 – 80 million birds are killed annually by cars and trucks. Further, it is estimated that several hundred thousand birds and bats are killed by wind turbines and wind farms. Again, 40 – 50 million birds are killed in the US by collisions with communications towers. What’s worse, it is estimated in the US that domestic and feral cats kill upwards of a billion birds annually. Should we ban cats? I can’t find any statistics about bird strikes against houses, but based on my direct experience, I submit it will lead to a high tally.
So given the severity of other sources of bird deaths, does the loss of 137 birds in Calgary warrant the expenditure of resources by the City of Calgary to add further regulation to the building industry to prevent bird deaths? Is this more important that many other significant issues facing Calgary? Is there a public safety issue here? Certianly there is not when it comes to bird strikes to buildings. Bird strikes in the aviation sector is without question much more significant in terms of public safety and security. Bird strikes against aircraft have the potential to bring down an aircraft and cause human deaths. It is estimated that bird strikes cause $1.2 billion in losses to the commercial aviation industry each year.
Can building owners do anything to reduce bird strikes? Yes, with the cooperation of tenants. Turning out the lights and closing blinds can have an immediate and positive impact. But these things are not within the immediate control of building owners. BOMA has been a perennial supporter of the FLAP program – Fatal Light Awareness Program – and we have regularly counselled industry members to be mindful the semi-annual migrations and to minimise light effects during these times.
Some design consideration can be taken into account. There is special glass which has an imperceptable pattern for humans, but birds can see it. It is made in Germany and is 50% more costly than conventional glass.
High rise buildings are an easy target for activists, apparently, as well as birds. But is it just high rise commercial buildings or will residential high rise and low density single family properties be subject to the regulations that the City is contemplating? If so, what is the impact to affordability that seems to be high on the politicians’ importance scale? What will the additional costs be? Has the City taken this into account? The more complete data one has will lead them to better decisions. But the big question is does the bird versus building matter really require a 43 page policy proposal to add even more red tape?
12 Tips of Christmas Crime Prevention
The BOMA Calgary Public Safety Committee has created a great 12 days of Christmas tips for crime prevention. Take some time to make sure you are doing what you can to have a safe and happy holiday season.
As well, the latest Business Newsletter from Calgary Police Service’s District 1 is now available, with updates on crime and anti-crime tips.
A happy and safe holiday from the BOMA Public Safety Committee!
Cutting the Red Tape
A lot of folks have called for the City to cut red tape. I hear it constantly from BOMA members. It seems the latest champion of cutting the red tape is none less than Mayor Naheed Nenshi. That is an encouraging sign. In fact, it was then Candidate Nenshi, who declared that it shouldn’t take a restaurant owner six months to get a permit to change light fixtures.
A number of years ago, when the Internet was coming into it’s own, I advocated allowing electronic submission (and tracking) of development applications. The City was, in their words, several years away from such capability. Since then, some applications for fairly mundane things like garages can be applied for online. But the more complex things cannot. To be fair, some development applications are very complex and may not fit the electronic format. But then what is it that the City examines once an application is submitted?
From an historical perspective, and this is going back a few years now, when I worked in the planning department there were two key things that the City considered: public safety and the implications of that development on City infrastructure. It is certainly a municipal interest to understand the incremental demand for sewer, water, streets, police, fire, schools, transit, and the like. That information will greatly in the legitimate planning the City must undertake to provide its citizens with critical infrastructure, and to create the financial plans to fund and pay for that infrastructure.
From what I am told, the City is now getting involved in the minutia of the design and internal uses of a building and taking the perspective that it owns the property. Is this the administrative equivalent of confiscation of property? Whether a retail unit within a building is for a flower shop or a barbershop is of no interest to the City and certainly shouldn’t be. Land use has its own bylaw, and the bylaw is pretty clear on what is a permitted use and what is not. So the key, and only, issue is: does the application conform to the land use zone. That declaration should take 15 seconds not 15 months.
The other thing that slows the process down occurs when aldermen – or, forgive me – Councillors, get involved in a particular application. They shouldn’t. That usurps the role of the administration and when Council gets involved at that level it is a de-motivator to the administration. Why after all should they do their jobs if councillors are going to step in anyhow. Councillors should simply back off.
Further, when councillors get involved in that application they lose objectivity. They are no longer in a position to act as a member of council for that application where that application must be considered by a Standing Committee, Calgary Planning Commission when the Councillor sits on CPC, and most certainly not when that same matter is before Council. It is clearly a conflict and they should so declare it and not participate in that decision.
Council should confine its activities to the high level, strategic stuff attention to which has in the past been so critically lacking. They will just have to learn to trust the administration to process applications against the approved policies and bylaws and let them do their jobs.
The other thing council can do is just let things alone. They have in the past been so prone to tweaking the rules to deal with this or that “brush fire” matter that it is difficult for anyone to really understand the rules. And that tweaking sets new precedents which the administration can beat up an applicant. Council is suppose to make decisions. If they are good decisions in the first instance, then Council needs to demonstrate discipline around that decision. My observation is that council is undisciplined and lacking in confidence of its own decisions. This compels them to seek consultants’ reports ad nauseum. Analysis paralysis does no one any good. Make sure you have the best information in the first instance and make a decision that is in the best interests of the community.
Regulations around development are needed. No one could argue successfully against that. But there also must be some accountability for unreasonable delays in the approvals process. There needs to be a reasonable expectation of timely consideration and resolution of a development application. If indeed there are assurances for a speedy criminal trial – and in fact some crooks are off the hook if they don’t get to court soon enough! Then why are there not similar limitations put onto planning applications. That is not unreasonable.
Time to fix things.
It’s a Matter of Public Safety
Winter again on the prairies brings with it snow, wind and other uncivilized meteorological unpleasantness. But as tough Albertans, we suck it up.
It never ceases to amaze me, however, that the City of Calgary seems surprised by the onslaught of winter. The white stuff arrived with a vengeance overnight on November 14/15. And, to their credit, the City’s maintenance folks, and their contractors, performed a good job. The roads were in pretty good shape in most instances.
However, on November 16 – the day after the snowfall – things were back to normal for Calgary, that being the roads were a complete mess. By comparison on both days I did notice that private roads and parking lots were both cleared and sanded. (Glenmore Landing Shopping Centre) yet the adjacent city road (90th Avenue) was not cleared and was dangerously icy. This condition repeated itself in several other places I visited that day. Private property was in generally good winter condition. Public areas were in dangerous condition. Why is it always that way?
Later that evening on Monday I had occasion to walk the dog on the regional pathway on 37th Street right of way (there is no developed road way in this location) and would you not be shocked and amazed that this footpath had been plowed and was bare pavement! Mind you I had to trudge through 20cm of snow to reach it. It begs the question: if the foot path can be cleared and rendered safe for the few dozen recreational walkers, why can major roads used by thousands be made safe? It’s is a fair question and one the City is obligated to answer. And by this I do mean a genuine answer and not a series of orchestrated bureaucratic responses. With a new mayor now in place, whose election platform promoted accountability, then a fresh set of responsible answers is warranted.
You see, in my humble opinion, governments exist for the sole purpose of protecting the public. It is their core purpose. Winter roads can be dangerous. Even the police tell us that when there is a major snow event there is in increase in the number of accidents by a factor of 10. It is not unusual, so the police tell us, that there may be in excess of 1,000 to 1,300 accidents compared with the daily average of 139. The economic impact of this to the community is very significant both in terms of injury and costs to the health care system, property damage, and lost productivity.
1994 data from California, the only data I could find, suggests that where there is an injury of any sort (based on an injury scale provided by the American Association of Automotive Medicine) the cost to society is in the region of $12,000.
Extrapolating to the one-day accident count during a major snow event this suggests that those 1,000 accidents could translate in to a society cost in the order of $12 million. Yet the City administrators claim $10 million is required annually to provide enhanced snow response in the name of public safety to clear more city streets.
The real argument is to to confine what the City does to addressing core services most of which relate to matters of public safety. There is an annual and ongoing debate as to whether or not an additional $10 should be allocated for snow clearing and the debate is circular and with no real conclusion. By comparison, there was little if any open debate about $25 million. ”The Bridge”. Council, it seems, is fully prepared to sacrifice its obligations to public safety in favour of ego-satisfying, non-essential infrastructure like the Calatrava bridge.
I wonder what will be the budget for clearing snow from “The Bridge”?
Calgarians need assurances of an expectation of safety on our roads. It is the obligation of the City that citizens have empowered to provide services on their behalf.
It is simply a matter of public safety.
Mayoral Forum Tuesday October 5
It’s quite tragic how few people vote in municipal elections…under 40% showed up to the polls in the last one. But if you take a minute to think about it, the election is an exciting event and the lead up – and deciding who to vote for – is also an event, or series of events, worth following.
Maybe you are still undecided or want to make sure your decision is sound. Or perhaps you haven’t made it to a Mayoral Candidates Forum yet. Either way, you can still attend the 2010 Mayoral Forum presented by the Chamber of Commerce and sponsored by SAIT. There are many organizations supporting this forum and its Community Partners, including BOMA Calgary, are here.
Be a part of the action this Tuesday! We still have a few tickets left; contact us if you’d like to attend. If you absolutely cannot take advantage of a free ticket, watch the live Webcast, provided by Maverick and streaming from the Chamber of Commerce website.
Whatever you do, try to vote. Don’t take this opportunity for granted!
See you October 5 or at the polls on October 18!
Industry Members Define Their Election Issues
The election seems to mirror the late-August weather here in Calgary: full of smoke and no clear vision. Perhaps the legions of City Council and Mayoral hopefuls are laying low in the bushes waiting for the other guy to come out first with their platform. What a silly way to seek public office. If you have a vision, if you have a plan, if you stand for something, then have the courage to speak. Leaders must be brave, but the candidates seem to be very timid in articulating what exactly it is they stand for, and exactly what it is they would seek to accomplish if elected to civic office. Perhaps they underestimate the value of that single vote. Certainly I don’t give my vote up without careful consideration and reflection as to congruency with my own personal vision for Calgary. Perhaps it is this willful reluctance on the part of candidates that keeps 80% of the electorate away from the polling statioins. Is their way of saying: “Sorry folks, but you guys and what you say just doesn’t interest me.” Could be.
While BC was burning, BOMA Calgary members were communicating their thoughts on Calgary’s election issues as seen from the perspective of an industry member. In our survey, which was available in June through mid-August, BOMA member were asked to indicate if they thought Calgary was a better place to live and to do business since the 2007 election. You might say it was their commentary on how they percieved the civic leaders’ collective performance.
I will summarize the findings of the survey, which was anwered by 11% of members, and therefore is statisically valid.
1. When you reflect upon the overall quality of life in Calgary today versus 2007, the time of the last election, do you think our city is a better place to live?
- 29.1% Said yes.
- 36.7% Said no.
- 25.3% Said no change. (But this could mean no change from “good” or “bad” depending on perception.)
2. Thinking about the business climate today versus three years ago, (E.g. municipal tax rates, “red tape”, investment climate, etc.), do you think Calgary is a better city now in which to conduct business than in 2007?
- It’s Better 7.6%
- It’s Worse 50.6%
- No change – it’s still OK 20.3%
- No change – it’s still poor 12.7%
3. Thinking about the spending priorities and fiscal management of the City of Calgary today versus three years ago, do you think Calgary is better managed than in 2007?
- Yes – 10.1%
- No – 73.4%
- No Change – 7.6%
4. In your opinion, what is the number 1 competency the new mayor and City Council should possess?
- Solid finanical management – 29.1%
- Inspiring leadership – 8.9%
- Prinicpled decision making – 6.3%
- Clear vision, plan and priorities – 27.8%
- Good communications and listening skills – 3.8%
- Transperency and Accountability – 7.6%
- Courage to make tough choices – 6.3%
- High level strategic thinking – 10.1%
So there you have it. This is what members said. But it was not all bad news and it is incumbent upon me to report the positives as well. Most notably there was a perceived and significant increase in Public Safety. (Thank you Chief Hanson) As well, there were modest gains in terms of environmental management, housing affordability (probably more due to the tanking of the economy than any deliberate action of Council), and improvements in transportation, mostly interchanges and West LRT.
But in the open-ended questions, respondents noted that the red tape at City Hall is very cumbersome and the administration is more of a barrier to creativity and innovation by industry rather than an enabler. There were the predictable negative comments about tax burden, but more significantly there was concern over the value received for that tax dollar, and the lack of real or genuine accountability for those expenditures. Lastly, the respondents indicated they did not beleive that Council was accessible enough, nor was there meaningful opportunities to provide Council with input. Several respondents complained about Aldermen not returning calls, letters, email, etc.
So, candidates, there you have it. This is what industry members had to say about where we are after 3 years of the current City Council.
I suspect that platforms will roll out after Labour Day and in the run down to the election, it will be interesting to see what comes out from the aspiring Council Members. Fluff or substance. I want much less of the former and a whole lot of the latter. I think my vote is important. Do they?
Consistency in Election Concerns
The survey results are pouring in and the mood is becoming increasingly clear. Since the 2007 election, 35% of respondents are of the view that quality of life in Calgary has diminished, while 29% think there has been some improvement and 27% see no change. What’s even more concerning 54% think the business climate has become worse and just 4% think it has improved.
In terms of financial management and spending priorities of City Council, an alarming 75% believe Calgary is worse off than in 2007 and 6% think things have improved.
What are survey respondents looking for by way of the single most important competency in Calgary’s next mayor? The early results are clear (there were 9 choices of competencies): 31% said solid financial management skills, 25% said clear vision, plan and priorities, 14% said high-level, strategic thinking and 10% said transparency and accountability in decision making.
The survey is still open and there is time to submit your opinions. Click here to take the survey.
We Are Beginning to Hear the Voices and Loudly
Earlier today, I pushed out a survey to industry members. Many have responded and if these early responses are any indication there is a great deal of frustration if not anger in the sector. Comments about read tape, comments about apparently undisciplined spending by Council, the perception that the city administration is too powerful – and is the tail wagging the dog (Council), are all measures of the consistent angst we are seeing.
What is on your mind as relates to the forthcoming municipal election. Repond to the BOMA Survey.
Getting the Industry Voice Heard
One of the greatest complaints many BOMA members have made about municipal government is that often the industry’s voice has not been heard. This has raised concern about those two words we hear much about: transparency and accountability.
Calgary will have a municipal election in mid-October and now is the time to ferret out the issues and start putting the questions to the candidates, especially those seeking the mayor’s chair.
BOMA will support the Calgary Chamber of Commerce who will be producing an all-candidates forum in late September or early October. BOMA has put together a survey 2010 Municipal Election Survey aimed at gathering industry-members’ opinions as to what are the key issues that the candidates should address.
Elections are time when the tough questions should be asked. And as electors, we should get real answers. Too many wannabe politicians are prone to speaking in 15-second sound bites, or strings of cliches such as there is no message in their words, just noise. I remain hopeful, and probably naively so, but I hope that amongst the 11 or so mayoralty candidates there will be at least one inspiring leader, one individual who has a strong vision for Calgary’s future and all it can be; one who can successfully and enthusiastically communicate that vision such that it becomes clear to every Calgarian what then has to be done and they pull together to make our city great.
Help shape Calgary’s future. Answer our survey. Click here to begin.